V. I. Lenin

Explanatory Note on the Draft of theMain Grounds of the Bill on the Eight-Hour Working Day

Written:Written in the autumn of 1909Published:First published in 1924 in the magazineProletarskaya Revolutsia, No. 4 (27).

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 16,

      pages110-116.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org)
      © 2004

      Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the
      terms of theGNU Free Documentation License.

Inthe present, second part of the explanatory note we in
tend to dwell on the question of thetypeof the Social-Democratic
Bill on the Eight-Hour Working Day for the Third Duma and on thegroundsexplaining thebasic featuresof the Bill.

Theoriginal draft in the possession of the Duma Social-Democratic
group and given to our subcommittee could be taken as a basis, but it has
required a number of alterations.

Themain aim of the Bills introduced by the Social-Democrats in the
Third Duma must lie inpropaganda and agitationfor the
Social-Democratic programme and tactics. Any hopes of the “reformism” of
the Third Duma would not only be ludicrous, but would threaten completely
to distort the character of Social-Democratic revolutionary tactics and
convert it into the tactics of opportunist, liberal
social-reformism. Needless to say, such a distortion of Social-Democratic
Duma tactics would directly and emphatically contradict the universally
binding decisions of our Party, viz.: the resolutions of the London
Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and the resolutions, confirmed by the CentralCommittee, of the All-Russian Party Conferences of November 1907 and
December 1908.

ForBills introduced by the Social-Democratic group in the Duma to
fulfil their purpose, the following conditions are necessary.

(1)Bills must set out in the clearest and most definite form the
individual demands of the Social-Democrats included in the minimum
programme of our Party or necessarily following from this programme;

(2)Bills must never be burdened with an abundance of legal subtleties;
they must give themain groundsfor the pro posed laws, but not
elaborately worded texts of laws with all details;

(3)Bills should not excessively isolate various spheres of social
reform and democratic changes, as might appear essential from a narrowly
legal, administrative or “purely parliamentary” standpoint. On the
contrary, pursuing the aim of Social-Democratic propaganda and agitation,
Bills should give the working class the most definite idea possible of thenecessary connectionbetween factory (and social in general)
reforms and thedemocraticpolitical changes without which all
“reforms” of the Stolypin autocracy are inevitably destined to undergo a

“Zubatovist”{6}distortion and be reduced to a dead letter. As a
matter of course this indication of the connection between economic reforms
and politics must be achieved not by including in all Bills the demands of
consistent democracy in their entirety, but by bringing to the fore the
democratic and specially proletarian-democratic institutions corresponding
to each individual reform, and the impossibility of realising such
institutions without radical political changes must be emphasised in the
explanatory note to the Bill;

(4)in view of the extreme difficulty under present conditions of legal
Social-Democratic propaganda and agitation among the masses, Bills must be
so composed that the Bill taken separately and the explanatory note to it
taken separatelycan achieve their aimon reaching the masses
(whether by being reprinted in non-Social-Democratic newspapers, or by the
distribution of separate leaflets with the text of the Bill, etc.), i.e.,
can be read by rank-and-file unenlightened workers to the advantage of the
developmentof their class-consciousness. With this end in view the Bills in theirentirestructure must be imbued with a spirit of proletarian
distrust of the employers and of the state as an organ serving the
employers: in other words, the spirit of the class struggle must permeate
the whole structure of the Bill and ensue from the sum of its separate
propositions;

finally(5) under conditions in Russia today,
i.e., in the absence of a Social-Democratic press and Social-Democratic
meetings, Bills must give a sufficientlyconcreteidea of the
changes demanded by the Social-Democrats and not limit themselves to a mereproclamationof principle. The ordinary unenlightened worker
should find his interest aroused by the Social-Democratic Bill, he should
be inspired by its concrete picture of change so that later he passes from
this individual picture to the Social-Democratic world outlook as a whole.

Proceedingfrom these basic premises, it has to he admitted that the
type of Bill chosen by the author of the original draft of the Bill on the
Eight-Hour Working Day ismore in accordancewith Russian
conditions than, for example, those Bills on a shorter working day which
were introduced by the French and German Social-Democrats in their
parliaments. For example, the Bill on the Eight-Hour Working Day moved by
Jules Guesde in the French Chamber of Deputies on May 22, 1894, contains
two articles: the first for bids working longer than eight hours per day
and six days per week, the second permits work in several shifts provided
that the number of working hours per week does not exceed

				 48.{2}The German Social-Democratic Bill of 1890 contains 14 lines, proposing a
10-hour working day immediately, a nine-hour working day from January 1,
1894, and an eight-hour day from January 1, 1898. In the session of
1900–02 the German Social-Democrats put forward a still shorter proposal
for limiting the working day immediately to ten hours, and subsequently to
eight hours, at a time to be decided

			     separately.{3}

Inany case, of course, such Bills are ten times more rational from the
Social-Democratic point of view than attempts to “adapt” oneself to what
ispracticablefor reactionary or bourgeois governments. But
whereas in France and Germany, where there is freedom of press and
assembly, it suffices to draft a Bill with only aproclamation of
principle, in our case in Russia at the present time it is necessary
to addconcrete propagandamaterial in the Billitself.

Hencewe regard as more expedient thetypeadopted by the
author of the original draft, but a number of corrections need to be made
in this draft, for in some cases the author commits what is in our opinion
an extremely important and extremely dangerous mistake, viz., he lowers the
demands of our minimum programme without any need for it (e.g., by fixing
the weekly rest period at 36 hours instead of 42, or by saying nothing
about the need to have the consent of the workers’ organisations for
permitting night work). In a few cases the author, as it were, tries to
adapt his Bill to the requirement of “practicability” by proposing, for
example, that theministershould decide requests for exceptions
(with the matter being raised in the legislative body) and by making no
mention of the role of the workers’ trade union organisations in
implementing the law on the eight-hour day.

TheBill proposed by our subcommittee introduces into the original
draft a number of corrections in the above-mentioned direction. In
particular, we shall dwell on the grounds for the following alterations of
the original draft.

Onthe question of what enterprises should come under the Bill, the
sphere of its application should be extended to include all branches of
industry, trade and transport, and all kinds of institutions (including
those of the state: the post office, etc.) as well as home work. In the
explanatory note put forward in the Duma the Social-Democrats must
especially emphasise the need for such an extension and for putting an end
to all boundaries and divisions (in this matter) between the factory,
trading, office, transport and other sections of the proletariat.

Thequestion may arise of agriculture, in view of the demand in our
minimum programme for an eight-hour working day “for all
wage-workers”. We think, however, that it ishardly expedient atthe present timefor the Russian
Social-Democrats to take the initiative in proposing an eight-hour working
day in agriculture. It would be better to make the proviso in the
explanatory note that the Party reserves the right to introduce a further
Bill in regard to both agriculture and domestic service, etc.

Further,in all cases where the Bill deals with the permissibility of
exceptions to the law, we have inserted a demand for the consent of the
workers’ trade union to each exception. This is essential in order to show
the workers clearly that it is impossible to achieve an actual reduction of
the working day without independent action on the part of the workers’
organisations.

Next,we must deal with the question of thegradualintroduction of the eight-hour working day. The author of the original
draft does not say a word about this, limiting himself to the simple demand
for the eight-hour day as in Jules Guesde’s Bill. Our draft, on the other
hand, follows the model of

				Parvus{4}and the draft of the German Social-Democratic group in the Reichstag,
establishing agradualintroduction of the eight-hour working day
(immediately, i.e., within three months of the law coming into force, a
ten-hour day, and a reduction by one hour annually). Of course, the
difference between the two drafts is not such an essential one. But in view
of the very great technical backwardness of Russian industry, the extremely
weak organisation of the Russian proletariat and the huge mass of the
working class population (handicraftsmen, etc.) that has not yet
participated in any big campaign for a reduction of the working day—in
view of all these conditions it will be more expedienthere and
now, in the Billitself, to answer the inevitable objection
that a sharp change is impossible, that with such a change the workers’
wages will be reduced,

				etc.[5]Layingdown a gradual introduction of the eight-hour working day (the Germans
protracted its introduction to eight years; Parvus to four years; we are
proposing two years) provides an immediate reply to this objection: work in
excess of ten hours per day is certainly irrational economically and
impermissible on health and cultural grounds. The annual term, however, for
reducing the working day by one hour fully suffices for the technically
backward enterprises to come into line and introduce changes, and for the
workers to go over to the new system without an appreciable difference in
labour productivity.

Theintroduction of the eight-hour working day should be made gradual
not in order to “adapt” the Bill to the measure of the capitalists or
government (there can be no question of this, and if such ideas were to
arise we should, of course, prefer to exclude any mention of gradualness),
but in order to show everyone quite clearly the technical, cultural and
economic practicability of the Social-Democratic programme in even one of
the most backward countries.

Aserious objection to making the introduction of the eight-hour
working day a gradual one in theRussianSocial-Democratic Bill
would be that this would disavow, even if indirectly, the revolutionary
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies of 1905, which called forimmediaterealisation of the eight-hour working day. We regard this as a serious
objection, for the slightest disavowal of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputiesin this respectwould be direct renegacy, or at any rate support
of the renegades and counter-revolutionary liberals, who have made
themselves notorious by such a disavowal.

Wethink therefore thatin any case, whether gradualness will
be incorporated in the Bill of the Social-Democratic Duma group or not,in any caseit is altogether essential thatboththe
explanatory note submitted to the Dumaandthe Duma speech of the
Social-Democratic representative, should quite definitely express a view
which absolutely excludes the slightest disavowal of the actions of the
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies and absolutelyincludesour
recognition of them as correct in principle, wholly legitimate and
necessary.

“TheSocial-Democrats,” so, approximately, the statement of the
Social-Democratic representatives or their explanatory note should read,
“do not in any case renounce theimmediateintroduction of the
eight-hour working day; on the contrary, incertainhistorical
conditions, when the struggle becomes acute, when the energy and initiative
of the mass movement are at a high. level, when the clash between the old
society and the new assumes sharp forms, when for the success of the
working class struggle against medievalism, for instance, it isessentialnot to stop at anything—in short, in conditions
resembling those of November 1905—the Social-Democrats regard theimmediateintroduction of the eight-hour working, day as not only
legitimate but evenessential. By inserting in its Bill at the
present time a gradual introduction of the eight-hour working day, the
Social-Democrats merely desire to show thereby the entire possibility of
putting into effect the demands of the programme of the R.S.D.L.P. even
under the worst historical conditions, even during the slowest tempo of
economic, social and cultural development."

Letus repeat: we considersucha declaration on the part of
the Social-Democrats in the Duma and in their explanatory note to the Bill
on the eight-hour working day asabsolutelyand under all
circumstances essential, whereas the question of introducing a gradual
establishment of the eight-hour working day in the Bill itself is
relatively less important.

Theremaining changes made by us in the original draft of the Bill
concern particular details and do not require special comment.

[1]The first part of the first chapter of the explanatory note should
include a popular account, written in as propagandist a manner as possible,
of the reasons in favour of the eight-hour working day, from the point of
view of the productivity of labour, the health and cultural interests of
the proletariat, and the interests in general of its struggle for
emancipation.  —Lenin

{2}Jules Guesde,Le Problème et la solution; les huit heures
à la chambre, Lille. (The Problem and Its Solution; the
Eight-Hour Day in Parliament—Ed.)

{3}M. Schippel,Sozial-Demokratisches Reichstagshandbuch (Social
Democratic Handbook to the Reichstag—Ed.) Berlin, 1902,
pp. 882 and 886.

{4}Parvus,Die Handelskrisis und die Gewerkschaften. Nebst
Anhang, Gesetzentwurf über den achtstundigen
Normalarbeitstag. München: 1901 (Parvus,The Trade Crisis and the
Trade Unions. With appendix: Bill on the Eight-Hour Normal Working Day
Munich, 1901.—Ed.)

[5]On the question of thegradualintroduction of the eight-hour
working day Parvus says, in our opinion quite rightly, that this feature of
his Bill arises “not from the desire to come to an understanding with the
employers but from the desire to come to an understanding with the
workers. We should follow the tactics of the trade unions:they carry out the reduction of the working day extremely gradually for
they are well aware that this is the easiest way to counteract areduction of wages” (Parvus’s italics, ibid., pp. 62–63).  —Lenin

{6}Zubatov, S. V.—colonel of gendarmerie and chief of the
Moscow Secret Police, who carried out a policy known as “police
socialism”. In 1901–03, on his initiative legal workers’ organisations
were set up in order to divert the workers from the political struggle
against the autocracy. Zubatov’s activity in setting up legal workers’
organisations was supported by V. K. Plehve, Minister of the
Interior. Zubatov tried to direct the working-class movement towards the
achievement of purely economic demands and, to make the workers think that
the government was ready to meet their demands. The first Zubatov
organisation was set up in Moscow in May 1901 under the name “Society for
the Mutual Assistance of Workers in Mechanical Industry”. Zubatov
organisations were set up also in Minsk, Odessa, Vilna, Kiev and other
cities.

Thereactionary character of Zubatovism was unmasked by the
revolutionary Social-Democrats, who made use of legal workers’
organisations to draw wide sections of the working class into the struggle
against the autocracy. Owing to the upsurge of the revolutionary movement
in 1903, the tsarist government was compelled to liquidate the Zubatov
organisations.